I showed some actual data to back up my opinion.
No, you didn't. You presented some PC social science theorizing and speculating, to wit:
low self-esteem is associated with unsafe sex, teenage pregnancy, aggression, criminal behavior, the abuse of alcohol and other drugs, and membership in deviant groups.
This vacuous bilge begs the vary obvious question of just how low self esteem itself, decoupled from a society that glorifies, supports, and celebrates sexual promiscuity, reckless hedonism, the unimportance of family, and prolonged emotional/psychological immaturity could possible lead, in a disproportionate manner, to all the things mentioned were the society in question not itself a primary contributor to making these compensatory pursuits so attractive and viable to those with poor self concept.
It is also quite obvious that people with very high, and indeed, pathological self esteem (narcissism) are just as likely to engage in the mentioned behaviors. Even more obvious is the observation that, self esteem aside, sex, drugs, and hedonistic indulgence are attractive, at some level, to most people because of core elements of human nature (which the gospel understands as inherent aspects of the Fall) that are independent of high or low self esteem.
Also present here (as is typical of western social "science") is the classic unexamined secular leftist reversal of causation, the author being transparently innocent of the degree to which "unsafe sex, teenage pregnancy, aggression, criminal behavior, the abuse of alcohol and other drugs, and membership in deviant groups" is a primary cause of low self esteem, which then feeds, maintains, and expands the behaviors listed.
The article also mentions low self-esteem being related to "irresponsible sexual behavior," including promiscuity. ("The Role of Low Self-Esteem in Emotional and Behavioral Problems," Mark Leary, Lisa Schreindorfer, Alison Haupt, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 14:3, 1995).
It probably does, precisely to the same extent, and perhaps more, than irresponsible sexual behavior leads to low self-esteem, which leads to a viscous cycle in which behavior alters and modifies perception, which then influences further behavior, which supports further negative self perception, in a spiraling cycle of self negation. Addiction follows a very similar trajectory.
Behavior cannot be extracted and isolated from perception. Hedonistic, promiscuous sex, adultery, drug use, alcohol abuse, violence and criminal activity etc. will lead inexorably to low self esteem. The author provides a chicken-egg argument and then sides with the chicken. The egg is the behavior that produced negative/pathological perceptions of self and self worth that produced further behavior in conformity with the expectations and assumptions generated by those perceptions - is never mentioned. "Low self-esteem" (a near religious preoccupation within the contemporary therapeutic culture, at least since the seventies) appears as an initial condition devoid of cause and effect relations with other psychological dynamics, not the least of which is the effect of the experience of behavior upon self perception.
And here's an article showing a correlation between low self-esteem among homosexuals and the negative views of the broader culture:
"Qualitative data from open-ended interviews with 76 African American men (aged 18–29 years) who have sex with men were used to examine the relationship among negative attitudes toward homosexuality, self-esteem, and risk for HIV. Respondents perceived members of their communities as holding negative attitudes toward homosexuality, and many thought the African American community was less accepting of homosexuality than the white community. There was evidence that these negative attitudes are internalized by some of the young African American men themselves. Respondents mentioned several ways that negative attitudes toward homosexuality could lead to lower self-esteem and psychological distress in young gay and bisexual men. In addition, respondents articulated several mechanisms by which low self-esteem and psychological distress might be associated with sexual behaviors that put one at risk for HIV. It is concluded that addressing and changing society's negative views of homosexuality are important components of a comprehensive approach to reducing the transmission of HIV, especially among young people in communities of color. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)." (Homophobia, self-esteem, and risk for HIV among African American men who have sex with men.
Stokes, Joseph P.;Peterson, John L. AIDS Education and Prevention, Vol 10(3), Jun 1998, 278-292.)
Take another look at this, John. This is pseudoscience, at best. Researchers ask a small set of homosexual men for their
subjective perceptions of their social status and sense of place in the larger society? With no controls or any way of ascertaining the actual empirical basis or legitimacy of their responses, it's impossible to come to any conclusion at all regarding what these assertions actually imply for the society outside the subjective thought worlds of the participants in the study. How do the researchers know whether and to what degree the claimed link between their lifestyle and low self-esteem are accurate representations of reality and not carefully manufactured rationalizations (increased and maintained by group-think, in-group solidarity, and intellectual support from within the social sciences and having the imprimatur of "science") that significantly alter or ignore the actual psychological dynamics and processes involved?
I'm just saying that sadomasochism has been repeatedly shown to have a direct correlation with how sex was treated in the home during childhood.
I'm sorry, but where did you show this, repeatedly or otherwise? You made one argument by assertion, and left it at that.
The internal issues you mention are often related to the use of extreme guilt and control in the home, particularly when dealing with sexuality. Is there causation? I don't know, but there is definitely correlation.
And unless we know what "severe" means here (which I suspect means any substantive restriction upon sexual expression at all, including expectations of strict chastity before marriage etc.) the claim is useless (having lived through the sexual revolution myself, and having paid attention to its major claims, even as early as Junior High School, I have a good idea where these kinds of claims are going to go).